Tanenhaus: Populism, Politics and the Power of Sarah Palin

In the New Yorker, Sam Tanenhaus has a very interesting review of Sarah Palin’s book, with a revealing quote from Palin’s father about her reason for leaving Hawaii (where she was attending UH):

She is equally circumspect on the issue of ethnicity, pointing out that Todd, whom she met in high school, is “part Yupik Eskimo” and opened her to the “social diversity” of Alaska. (Wasilla is more than eighty per cent white.)Palin, though notoriously ill-travelled outside the United States, did journey far to the first of the four colleges she attended, in Hawaii. She and a friend who went with her lasted only one semester. “Hawaii was a little too perfect,” Palin writes. “Perpetual sunshine isn’t necessarily conducive to serious academics for eighteen-year-old Alaska girls.” Perhaps not. But Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, gave a different account to Conroy and Walshe. According to him, the presence of so many Asians and Pacific Islanders made her uncomfortable: “They were a minority type thing and it wasn’t glamorous, so she came home.” In any case, Palin reports that she much preferred her last stop, the University of Idaho, “because it was much like Alaska yet still ‘Outside.’ ”

Palin’s discomfort is easy to understand. Race is often the subtext of populist campaigns; their most potent appeal is to whites who are feeling under siege by changing economic and cultural conditions. Palin’s strength with this constituency can only have grown since the last election.

Palin’s discomfort is easy to understand. Race is often the subtext of populist campaigns; their most potent appeal is to whites who are feeling under siege by changing economic and cultural conditions. Palin’s strength with this constituency can only have grown since the last election.

Maybe more complex than that--she and the people around her are really not aware of what the United States looks like. I keep getting told that I need to understand the special, rugged values of Sarah's constituency, while realizing that she really has no clue about any other place. How can she possibly share who she and hers are, if the rest of us just slightly squick her out?

don't strike me as particularly well-reasoned or germane. What is it that makes such a lack "notorious" exactly? And why is it an "ill"-ness? An awful lot of people have never traveled outside their own countries - I'd bet a large majority, in fact.

Correction: her father noted she felt herself uncomfortable around so many Asians and Pacific Islanders, and it was left to Mr. Tanenhaus to finish the thought and explain it as of a piece with the latent racism at the root of populist movements.

Someone misread it that way in the last thread too. What is up with that?

Her father did not accuse her of racist tendencies, but did note she felt uncomfortable around Asians and Pacific Islanders while in Hawaii. Mr. T, however, ties that into her political inclinations and populism.

Well the possibility that someone who was not raised around much racial diversity might feel slighty uncomfortable or out of place when placed in the minority is not exactly shocking. Nor does it necessarily mean that they are a racist, it is how they handle that discomfort that matters.

don't strike me as particularly well-reasoned or germane. What is it that makes such a lack "notorious" exactly? And why is it an "ill"-ness? An awful lot of people have never traveled outside their own countries - I'd bet a large majority, in fact.

don't strike me as particularly well-reasoned or germane. What is it that makes such a lack "notorious" exactly? And why is it an "ill"-ness? An awful lot of people have never traveled outside their own countries - I'd bet a large majority, in fact.

Please. It was 'notorious' in the sense of well-known-- because it was an issue during the campaign. And while it may not be unusual for the average American, don't we expect and want more from our leaders (or potential leaders) than that they be 'average'?

And Palin made it an issue herself by trying to claim any kind of foreign relations cred. Pitiful.

"In the end, movement conservatives got the war they wanted--both at home and abroad. It ended, at last, with the 2008 election, and the emergence of a president who seems more thoroughly steeped in the principles of Burkean conservatism than any significant thinker or political figure on the right."

"In the end, movement conservatives got the war they wanted--both at home and abroad. It ended, at last, with the 2008 election, and the emergence of a president who seems more thoroughly steeped in the principles of Burkean conservatism than any significant thinker or political figure on the right."

It's sad how little some people have progressed in society. I keep thinking that 50 years from now people will see hating people for being gay like we currently do with blacks and the civil rights movement, then I realize how many people still have the mindset during the civil rights movement and haven't progressed at all. It only promotes my pessimism.

"In the end, movement conservatives got the war they wanted--both at home and abroad. It ended, at last, with the 2008 election, and the emergence of a president who seems more thoroughly steeped in the principles of Burkean conservatism than any significant thinker or political figure on the right."

According to your quote, Tanenhaus thinks that Obama is more of a Burkean conservative, or at least more familiar with the principles of Burkean conservatism, than any significant thinker on the right.

That isn't implausible, nor is it the same as saying that Obama IS a burkean conservative.

Conservatives, who used to denounce “identity politics,” have fashioned their own version of it, anchored in the culture wars, with its parallel conflicts of background and class. Palin incarnates the latest version, which is a politics not of “special interests” but of the singular self.

I don't think she is, in a classic sense. I think she's bothered by people who are not like her. Todd comes from her own background, and shares her ideology and interests and culture. I think she can't deal with people who do not share those things with her, or step out of herself, or find common ground with Americans who aren't 'her kind of people'. That's why I find the folksy patter, coming from her, so nauseating.

It's sad how little some people have progressed in society. I keep thinking that 50 years from now people will see hating people for being gay like we currently do with blacks and the civil rights movement, then I realize how many people still have the mindset during the civil rights movement and haven't progressed at all. It only promotes my pessimism.

Specific bigotries never completely disappear. But they dwindles into insignificance over time. There will always, though, be some small number who hang onto them.

On the topic of hating gays, my own projections for reducing that to an extreme minority position are that such a time, if not already here, certainly will be in a lot less than a half-century. The amount of progress that's occurred just in the last few years has been rapid and widespread, almost startling.

I wondered about that also. She is certainly aware of the indigenous people of Alaska who after all are descendants of those who left Asia. Why would she be uncomfortable around them? Perhaps it is culture and not race which caused her to be uncomfortable?

"In the end, movement conservatives got the war they wanted--both at home and abroad. It ended, at last, with the 2008 election, and the emergence of a president who seems more thoroughly steeped in the principles of Burkean conservatism than any significant thinker or political figure on the right."

It's not really that much of a stretch: Liberal conservatism
Republicans don't have a monopoly on conservatism. Much of what they support (creationism, opposing gay marriage, economic populism, etc) has nothing at all to do with conservative principles.

Tanenhaus uses the racial charge to discredit populism on what is a fairly safe ground. This is not the primary or even the most important objection to populism as a movement and populists such as Palin et al.

According to your quote, Tanenhaus thinks that Obama is more of a Burkean conservative, or at least more familiar with the principles of Burkean conservatism, than any significant thinker on the right.

That isn't implausible, nor is it the same as saying that Obama IS a burkean conservative.

Tanenhaus' version of Burkean conservatism amounts to little more than accommodation to the latest status quo attained following the last leftist push forward. He is categorically counter-revolutionary, and even goes so far as to blame a fairly good-sized chunk of the counterrevolutionary movement (identified in his mind somehow also with neo-conservatism) to the vestiges of Marxist patterns of thought among new converts to the Right.

Paradoxically, he blames these "Right" Marxists for attempting to undo what their "Left" Marxist comrades had done before them. On his definition, Burkean conservatism is indistinguishable from a slightly moderated version of whatever it tis that the core of the political left is pushing for at any given moment, and is dedicated to the maintenance and support of the previous gains made by the political left.

In short, Burke would call him a fool and laugh in his face for libeling his name with such tendentious stuff.

I don't think she is, in a classic sense. I think she's bothered by people who are not like her. Todd comes from her own background, and shares her ideology and interests and culture. I think she can't deal with people who do not share those things with her, or step out of herself, or find common ground with Americans who aren't 'her kind of people'. That's why I find the folksy patter, coming from her, so nauseating.

As was mentioned in the article this is about identity politics. Palin embodies an ideal state for her followers and those who as you say, "[come] from her own background, and shares her ideology and interests and culture." In this case it is a stringent test in politics with no room for the vastness of American society. Her propensity for memes are simply the vocalization of the proverbial litmus test that appeals to the minority that makes up those that identify with the Palin ideal.

It's not really that much of a stretch: Liberal conservatism
Republicans don't have a monopoly on conservatism. Much of what they support (creationism, opposing gay marriage, economic populism, etc) has nothing at all to do with conservative principles.

The positions in question are populist, not conservative, as you note. This is not to say that the opposite of these positions is conservative, either.

Specific bigotries never completely disappear. But they dwindles into insignificance over time. There will always, though, be some small number who hang onto them.

On the topic of hating gays, my own projections for reducing that to an extreme minority position are that such a time, if not already here, certainly will be in a lot less than a half-century. The amount of progress that's occurred just in the last few years has been rapid and widespread, almost startling.

Well we were on a pretty good track to full acceptance. Then Bush happened, and if not set us back then at least put it on hold.

"Palin, though notoriously ill-travelled outside the United States, did journey far to the first of the four colleges she attended, in Hawaii."

As an aside - Hawaii (and Seattle) are like "bedroom communities" to many who work in Alaska. Hawaii is only a four hour flight due south from Anchorage. A significant number of small businesses have facilities in both locations. They winter in Hawaii and spend the rest of the year in AK.

It's not really that much of a stretch: Liberal conservatism
Republicans don't have a monopoly on conservatism. Much of what they support (creationism, opposing gay marriage, economic populism, etc) has nothing at all to do with conservative principles.

As was mentioned in the article this is about identity politics. Palin embodies an ideal state for her followers and those who as you say, "[come] from her own background, and shares her ideology and interests and culture." In this case it is a stringent test in politics with no room for the vastness of American society. Her propensity for memes are simply the vocalization of the proverbial litmus test that appeals to the minority that makes up those that identify with the Palin ideal.

Yeah. What you said. Being as I don't come from that group, I am not so charmed with her...and I don't fancy her as an American leader, since she doesn't really like most Americans very well by that standard.

I don't think she is, in a classic sense. I think she's bothered by people who are not like her. Todd comes from her own background, and shares her ideology and interests and culture. I think she can't deal with people who do not share those things with her, or step out of herself, or find common ground with Americans who aren't 'her kind of people'. That's why I find the folksy patter, coming from her, so nauseating.

So she's maybe an ideologyinterestculturist. That's not a good trait in a president of VP, but it's a different thing from racism.

Off topic, but here is an interesting take by David Brooks on Obama's Afghanistan speech (it is a bit more forgiving than Charles Krauthammer's "Uncertain Trumpet"):

"The Analytic Mode"

"...The advantage of the Obama governing style is that his argument-based organization is a learning organization. Amid the torrent of memos and evidence and dispute, the Obama administration is able to adjust and respond more quickly than, say, the Bush administration ever did.

The disadvantage is the tendency to bureaucratize the war. Armed conflict is about morale, motivation, honor, fear and breaking the enemy’s will. The danger is that Obama’s analytic mode will neglect the intangibles that are the essence of the fight. It will fail to inspire and comfort. Soldiers and Marines don’t have the luxury of adopting President Obama’s calibrated stance since they are being asked to potentially sacrifice everything.

Barring a scientific breakthrough, we can’t merge Obama’s analysis with George Bush’s passion. But we should still be glad that he is governing the way he is. I loved covering the Obama campaign. But amid problems like Afghanistan and health care, it simply wouldn’t do to give gauzy speeches about the meaning of the word hope. It is in Obama’s nature to lead a government by symposium. Embrace the complexity. Learn to live with the dispassion."

In the eyes of some native Hawaiians, Palin would in some situations be called a "howlie". This is like calling a white person a "cracker". Howlies are sometimes assaulted for being white and non Hawaiian. If Tanenhaus wants to find racism he needs to look at the congressional black caucus.

In the eyes of some native Hawaiians, Palin would in some situations be called a "howlie". This is like calling a white person a "cracker". Howlies are sometimes assaulted for being white and non Hawaiian. If Tanenhaus wants to find racism he needs to look at the congressional black caucus.

Since this has been brought up a second time is it OK if we reflect on Idaho?

In the eyes of some native Hawaiians, Palin would in some situations be called a "howlie". This is like calling a white person a "cracker". Howlies are sometimes assaulted for being white and non Hawaiian. If Tanenhaus wants to find racism he needs to look at the congressional black caucus.

I grew up in Hawaii, and this is complete bullshit. You don't even know how to spell the word. It's "haole,' and it simply means "white." It's not inherently derogatory.

You're traveling pretty far afield from the article, and making an argument I honestly can't even follow. And it's not for lack of trying.

Tanenhaus' use of the "R" word in connection with populism and populists like Palin is of a piece with his overall position as orator at the funeral of the death of conservatism.

He could make very sound objections to populists and populism without making the stretch he has in this case, but cannot do so, because these critiques would undermine the chief driving force of his so-called "Burkean conservatism," namely, the populists and populisms of the political left.

In this context, I point to his analysis of Obama as "steeped" in Burkean conservatism as evidence of a fundamental blindness to the facts of the case, and use this instance to cast light on the pointless racism charge.

No it isn't. She's anti-science, shrugs personal responsibility, has nothing but contempt for the people who put her in the spot light, she's been petty in her criticisms, and an all around poor leader. I'd say we're going easy on her.

My family lived in Hawaii for several years, and I was born there. (BTW, my birth certificate has the same nefarious title "certificate of live birth" as Barrack Obama, so either both of us or neither are secret Muslim double agents.)

That said, Hawaii is a bad place to go if you are too provincial about diversity. It's not Sesame Street. The native people are just as petty and violent as you and me. The tendency to carry a chip on one's shoulder is as bad with Asians and the indigenous people as it is with the whitest of the Birthers or Glenn Beck fans...or bloggers.

Quote from Mr Tanenhaus:
"To an extent unmatched by any recent major political figure, she offers the erasure of any distinction—in skill, experience, intellect—between the governing and the governed."

He rather gives away his own prejudices with that, and even has a similar line as the sub-heading for his piece. I thought we were supposed to have a representative government, not a permanent ruling class of mandarins.

And being uncomfortable in an unfamiliar environment at age 18 makes her a racist for life ?

I don't understand how it's disproportionate, unless you mean far too many people see her as somehow a good leader.

Her father pointed to the fact she was uncomfortable in the presence of so many Asians and Pacific Islanders. he did not accuse her of racism. Tanenhaus was clever enough not to do so directly, but simply pointed this out and then led into a broader discussion of the racism he finds at the root of some of the appeal of populism.

Her father pointed to the fact she was uncomfortable in the presence of so many Asians and Pacific Islanders. he did not accuse her of racism. Tanenhaus was clever enough not to do so directly, but simply pointed this out and then led into a broader discussion of the racism he finds at the root of some of the appeal of populism.

And he's right. There's undeniably a large element of racism in current populist politics as practiced by people like Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and countless other right wing demagogues.

Well, it's pretty undeniable that racism is often used as a populist tool, so I'm not sure what your problem is with that.

And being uncomfortable around so many people of a different culture is, well, bigoted. They're people. It may be challenging to learn the social cues and deal with them, but that's what an open-minded person does, not run away because they're too different.

If someone is not comfortable in a situation where they are not part of the cultural majority, I have no idea how to interpret that other than bigotry. Perhaps you could offer a theory?

And he's right. There's undeniably an large element of racism in current populist politics as practiced by people like Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and countless other right wing demagogues.

So, as a populist, she's a presumptive racist, or is it as a racist, she's a presumptive populist?

Look, Tanenhaus chose the cheap and easy shot here. He could critique Palin and other populists all day long without dragging race into it, but he didn't, in this case, for the very simple reason that populism, as that of which he disapproves, cannot be consistent with "Burkean conservatism," of which he approves.

I repeat - Tanenhaus cannot critique populism on Burkean grounds because to do so would expose that his "Burkean conservatism" is simply moderated leftism. Hence, he drags race into it.

Well, it's pretty undeniable that racism is often used as a populist tool, so I'm not sure what your problem is with that.

And being uncomfortable around so many people of a different culture is, well, bigoted. They're people. It may be challenging to learn the social cues and deal with them, but that's what an open-minded person does, not run away because they're too different.

If someone is not comfortable in a situation where they are not part of the cultural majority, I have no idea how to interpret that other than bigotry. Perhaps you could offer a theory?

Culture shock is pretty common for many people on visiting a new area, but generally not the result of bigotry. I felt pretty uncomfortable among locals for a month or two after I moved from the US. Local customs, attitudes and habits can be very different in a new location, and it can take a while to adjust to them.

Well, it's pretty undeniable that racism is often used as a populist tool, so I'm not sure what your problem is with that.

He's not arguing that it's a tool of populism. He notes that the racist character of the leadership and their message is part of their appeal.

And being uncomfortable around so many people of a different culture is, well, bigoted. They're people. It may be challenging to learn the social cues and deal with them, but that's what an open-minded person does, not run away because they're too different.

I dunno. I imagine that there are many people who find themselves uncomfortable if they are in the cultural and ethnic minority.

If someone is not comfortable in a situation where they are not part of the cultural majority, I have no idea how to interpret that other than bigotry. Perhaps you could offer a theory?

Would you attribute bigotry to a Black man who finds himself uncomfortable living in, say, small-town Idaho after ahving lived in Detroit all his life?

One of the things to keep in mind about todays right-wing populism is that Americans have been taking lessons from the europeans for a number of years now- see here. Even Stacy McCain says he's an agent of the vlaams belang.

Besides the LGF archives, a great source for information on european fascism is Øyvind Strømmen, who is also a registered member of LGF, btw.

As was mentioned in the article this is about identity politics. Palin embodies an ideal state for her followers and those who as you say, "[come] from her own background, and shares her ideology and interests and culture." In this case it is a stringent test in politics with no room for the vastness of American society..

Not only that, it's a test which is profoundly unamerican in its assumptions and motivations: it's about defining a large segment of America (the majority, of it, in fact) as "not the real America", somehow illegitimate. Cf those comments about "Real Virginians", etc ("McCain is winning in the Real Virginia!"*)

We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe" -- here the audience interrupted Palin with applause and cheers -- "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.

Funny how these people who love to promote the notion of a "real America" always assume that they're part of it, huh?

One of the things to keep in mind about todays right-wing populism is that Americans have been taking lessons from the europeans for a number of years now- see here. Even Stacy McCain says he's an agent of the vlaams belang.

Besides the LGF archives, a great source for information on european fascism is Øyvind Strømmen, who is also a registered member of LGF, btw.

And note, too, that the same pattern we see at work in Europe can be instituted here, unless a vigorous and robust opposition to the fascists works hand-in-hand with other elements of the American right. If these SOB's get to be the opposition, then I might very well find myself forced to the left, or even out of political life altogether.

And note, too, that the same pattern we see at work in Europe can be instituted here, unless a vigorous and robust opposition to the fascists works hand-in-hand with other elements of the American right. If these SOB's get to be the opposition, then I might very well find myself forced to the left, or even out of political life altogether.

THey're already doing the same thing here. In europe, the moderate right parties are demonized by the fascists, and here we have RINO hunting.

I do think this is temporary, as American politics has a tendency to self-correct after awhile. We have a way of staying centralized overall. This strategy is failing, and more reasonable people will come forward as the election draws near... I hope.

He father makes a vague comment and now she's a racist, despite he being married to someone part native American and all her children sharing those genetics?
I'm no Palin fan, but this is really quite a stretch.

Sarah Palin seems like a nice enough person, flawed though she may be. But even before the revelations of the last 6 months, she was toast as a national office holder. Everything we have learned SINCE the election is basically throwing more dirt on the pile.

And the people who still take her seriously may be future Darwin Award winners.

I'd point out that any real opposition to these guys has to come from the Right.

Consider the case this way - mainstream political movements can tolerate wide diversity of opinion and still serve as cohesive expressions of political tendencies of their nations. Revolutionary movements, however, cannot; by their very nature, they seek to overthrow the order of things, and so their participation in non-revolutionary politics must be understood merely as a sort of tactical move, a way to get their foot in the door.

The American left dealt with the revolutionaries on its fringes by largely taming and co-opting them, to the extent that former bomb-tossers and anarchists are now the subject of a certain amount of hagiography and even a sort of sly and ironic idolization (witness the Che shirts, the iconography harking back to Mao et al). The American left now faces revolutionaries on its right flank. What will be done with and about them is yet to be seen.

I'd point out that any real opposition to these guys has to come from the Right.

Consider the case this way - mainstream political movements can tolerate wide diversity of opinion and still serve as cohesive expressions of political tendencies of their nations. Revolutionary movements, however, cannot; by their very nature, they seek to overthrow the order of things, and so their participation in non-revolutionary politics must be understood merely as a sort of tactical move, a way to get their foot in the door.

The American left dealt with the revolutionaries on its fringes by largely taming and co-opting them, to the extent that former bomb-tossers and anarchists are now the subject of a certain amount of hagiography and even a sort of sly and ironic idolization (witness the Che shirts, the iconography harking back to Mao et al). The American leftright now faces revolutionaries on its right flank. What will be done with and about them is yet to be seen.

Which, once again, is OK. You can live your whole life in a little town in Alaska and enjoy it, and be a good person, and all that jazz. What raises my hackles about Palin is when she goes on the road with this "We're more American than THEM" show for fun and profit.

And now I'm being accused of being a "bigot" in the 'Thank You' thread, just like clockwork, for pointing out that a raving AGW denier is a creationist.

I don't even see how that's controversial. As a creationist (YE or otherwise), you'd be inclined to view the planetary thermostat as firmly under the control of the Almighty. Consequently, you couldn't even consider any other possibilities.

Right–wing populism can act as both a precursor and a building block of fascism, with anti–elitist conspiracism and ethnocentric scapegoating as shared elements. The dynamic of right–wing populism interacting with and facilitating fascism in interwar Germany was chronicled by Peter Fritzsche in Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. Fritzsche showed that distressed middle–class populists in Weimar launched bitter attacks against both the government and big business

Would you attribute bigotry to a Black man who finds himself uncomfortable living in, say, small-town Idaho after ahving lived in Detroit all his life?

How would he know what is expected? There are endless unwritten rules to any culture. If you're from outside that culture, you have to feel your way and you have to be alert to the nonverbal cues signaling that you've transgressed such a rule.

This walking on eggs is a burden for anyone and naturally leads to some discomfort.

Being out in the wider world can be exhilarating, enlightening, scary, genuinely dangerous in some places, ---but it's always less comfortable than an old shoe or the culture you've already assimilated to.

How would he know what is expected? There are endless unwritten rules to any culture. If you're from outside that culture, you have to feel your way and you have to be alert to the nonverbal cues signaling that you've transgressed such a rule.

This walking on eggs is a burden for anyone and naturally leads to some discomfort.

Being out in the wider world can be exhilarating, enlightening, scary, genuinely dangerous in some places, ---but it's always less comfortable than an old shoe or the culture you've already assimilated to.

part of the reason for my climate skepticism has been the political nature of the debate. so yesterday I read a story in either Newsweek or Time about the glaciers in the Himalayas and how their damage will affect 3 billion people who depend on the water supply for their lives. nuclear armed nations competing for survival in an arid age. The implications are staggering. that was from a scientist, not a politician. 3 billion lives is half the planet ...

BTW, there were several lizards praying for my Marine on Friday and I want to thank you all for your concern. He doesn't have a blood clot in the leg, but he did tear his calf muscle severely and has a big hematoma. If the tear doesn't improve with a couple of days of bedrest, they're going to have to do surgery.

Which, once again, is OK. You can live your whole life in a little town in Alaska and enjoy it, and be a good person, and all that jazz. What raises my hackles about Palin is when she goes on the road with this "We're more American than THEM" show for fun and profit.

Palin's whole schtick is the politics of victimhood and resentment. She rang that bell as loud as she could during the campaign, and post-campaign she's apparently been crafting and perfecting the tale of Saint Sarah, Martyr of Wasilla. If we're not hearing about how horrible it is that David Letterman told a stupid joke about her daughter, she's raving on her facebook page about a previously unheard of blogger who speculates on her marriage -- thereby ensuring that everyone knows about the mean and terrible things being said.

That's her whole purpose: she appeals to resentful people, she stokes resentment, and she portrays herself as a victim at every possible turn. If people did not attack Palin she would have to invent their attacks (and sometimes she does).

BTW, there were several lizards praying for my Marine on Friday and I want to thank you all for your concern. He doesn't have a blood clot in the leg, but he did tear his calf muscle severely and has a big hematoma. If the tear doesn't improve with a couple of days of bedrest, they're going to have to do surgery.

Big hug for you and the Marine. My dad went through that not long ago. Best of luck with not having to do the surgery.

Let me start with I do not ever plan to vote for Sarah Palin due to her stand on creationism. However, one of the things I thought we were all trying to get past was our "model" of what a great leader should be...i.e. white, male, East Coast educated, well traveled, impeccable spouse, 2.3 children...etc. That a person felt uncomfortable around different people at 18 or whether they did cocaine at 18 bothers me not the least.

I always felt that right-wing populism was still very pro-capitalism and takes a "good for them" attitude toward the wealthy.

Nope, and we see that at work in the deranged ravings about the Fed and international banking and so forth that always mark these folks' events and literature. They're economic populists, but NOT socialists.

BTW, there were several lizards praying for my Marine on Friday and I want to thank you all for your concern. He doesn't have a blood clot in the leg, but he did tear his calf muscle severely and has a big hematoma. If the tear doesn't improve with a couple of days of bedrest, they're going to have to do surgery.

No, it doesn't, unless the person is politically and culturally on their side. The contempt for wealthy liberal people is off the charts.

So with this adjustment, would the statement be more accurate? "I always felt that right-wing populism was still very pro-capitalism and takes a "good for them" attitude toward wealthy whiteconservatives."

I don't think Sam T said populism=racism, only that race is often a subtext of populism. A point on which I would agree.

As far as Ms Palin feeling uncomfortable in Hawaii, fair enough, but one has to either deal with it by making friends, trying to understand the culture and appreciating it for what it is.

On the other hand if you feel like you are a victim, which she undeniably has done on numerous other occasions, you are more likely to dig in, blame others for your own inability to adapt, and perhaps develop a long term grievance against those who don't conform to your own ideals.

I lived in two neighborhoods in Gary, Indiana that turned over from all-white to predominantly black within months over "blockbusting" tactics: white people fled in panic as soon as the first blacks moved in.

In each case, my mom, a widower, could not afford to join the flight right away, so we stuck it out and noticed a pattern. The first black family to move in was every white families' nightmare: unruly kids, straying dogs, a sudden rise in bicycle thefts, tire marks on neighbors lawns and wine bottles discarded about the neighborhood.

All the susbequent families turned out to be fine folks and nice neighbors.

But the real estate company had turned over an entire block, probably making record profits, in less than a year.

And I well imagine it is people like those who fled those neighborhoods in terror who still live in fear of "the n*** taking over" (I noticed that LGF automatically amends the n-word withou me even having to do so) are the very folks who have a visceral loathing of Obama and are very susceptible to the only slightly hidden racist undertones of people like Beck and Palin.

So with this adjustment, would the statement be more accurate? "I always felt that right-wing populism was still very pro-capitalism and takes a "good for them" attitude toward wealthy whiteconservatives."

Closer; I'd imagine the race of the conservative making the money wouldn't be a primary or even secondary concern.

Heh, I just noticed that. I think he's looking for some attention. I wish somebody would ask him about the background image on his twiiter page. Is he going to protest against Obama with Code Pink and the Paulians?

IMO the most devastating thing in that piece is the negative comparison to Truman's and Reagan's self-educations. Decades ago I read a bio (Merle Miller's?) of Truman and was astonished at how widely HST had read.

(OT: Tanenhaus notes Reagan's spending, but he neglects to mention that Reagan regretted the deficit in his Farewell Address.)

Tanenhaus on the Palin book tour:

She is avoiding major cities in the Northeast and on the West Coast, a pointed assertion of her contempt for metropolitan élites.

Well, la dee da. I defer to no one in disappointment with Palin, but I don't think much of our pretentious metropolitan élites either.

I lived in two neighborhoods in Gary, Indiana that turned over from all-white to predominantly black within months over "blockbusting" tactics: white people fled in panic as soon as the first blacks moved in.

In each case, my mom, a widower, could not afford to join the flight right away, so we stuck it out and noticed a pattern. The first black family to move in was every white families' nightmare: unruly kids, straying dogs, a sudden rise in bicycle thefts, tire marks on neighbors lawns and wine bottles discarded about the neighborhood.

All the susbequent families turned out to be fine folks and nice neighbors.

But the real estate company had turned over an entire block, probably making record profits, in less than a year.

And I well imagine it is people like those who fled those neighborhoods in terror who still live in fear of "the n*** taking over" (I noticed that LGF automatically amends the n-word withou me even having to do so) are the very folks who have a visceral loathing of Obama and are very susceptible to the only slightly hidden racist undertones of people like Beck and Palin.

diversity is a concept that gets a bad rap. embracing it is essential for survival in the 21st century.

No, it doesn't, unless the person is politically and culturally on their side. The contempt for wealthy liberal people is off the charts.

Very true. It works like this:
Wingnut: Rich limousine libs have trust funds and know nothing of the world!
(Unless the family name is Bush; then inherited wealth and family connections and Ivy league degrees are good.)

Wingnut: We love self-made men who created their wealth! Capitalism! Entrepeneurial spirit! Rah!
(Unless the family name is Soros; then it's bad.)
Etc.

Heh, I just noticed that. I think he's looking for some attention. I wish somebody would ask him about the background image on his twiiter page. Is he going to protest against Obama with Code Pink and the Paulians?

To be honest, I don't many "right-wing populists" so I'm not that familiar with it, at least not on a personal level.

I live in Chicago, so most of my friends are liberals in their 20's. But I work in a very wealthy suburb. Most of the people there are conservatives and most of them are wealthy, or at least upper-middle class.

All of which goes to one of the things about my way of thinking that sorta distinguishes me from many of my fellows on the right: I see these commonalities of our ruling classes, note them as recurrent throughout human history, and am prepared to overlook their shortfalls and even embrace their traditions, provided they further the cause of humanity or at the very least do not impede our progress and survival.

I suppose I've got a deep sympathy for aristocracy at heart, and acknowledge it even in the mutilated forms it takes today.

Very true. It works like this:
Wingnut: Rich limousine libs have trust funds and know nothing of the world!
(Unless the family name is Bush; then inherited wealth and family connections and Ivy league degrees are good.)

Wingnut: We love self-made men who created their wealth! Capitalism! Entrepeneurial spirit! Rah!
(Unless the family name is Soros; then it's bad.)
Etc.

So ideology trumps wealth. Take T Boone Pickens. When he was part of the Swiftboating he was accepted as one of them. The moment he started talking about alternative energy and wind power he was not one of them. So we've seen the opposite ends with Pickens. With Soros it remains rather static.

diversity is a concept that gets a bad rap. embracing it is essential for survival in the 21st century.

I should be Mr Resentment, I grew up a minority (white) in a predominantly black city with a black mayor. I was discriminated against for being white. But I am not and I have little patience with racists who have never lived any nearer to a black family than on the proverbial other Side of the Railroad Tracks.

To be honest, I don't many "right-wing populists" so I'm not that familiar with it, at least not on a personal level.

I live in Chicago, so most of my friends are liberals in their 20's. But I work in a very wealthy suburb. Most of the people there are conservatives and most of them are wealthy, or at least upper-middle class.

Rightist populists are a whole other kettle of fish. Spooky stuff, to be sure. The recent Tea Party brouhaha was largely a product of right-populism. Dig back through here and there for a good peek at what was going on. The overwhelming majority of TP folks weren't necessarily right-populists, but there were enough there in evidence to give you an idea of what they look like.

part of the reason for my climate skepticism has been the political nature of the debate. so yesterday I read a story in either Newsweek or Time about the glaciers in the Himalayas and how their damage will affect 3 billion people who depend on the water supply for their lives. nuclear armed nations competing for survival in an arid age. The implications are staggering. that was from a scientist, not a politician. 3 billion lives is half the planet ...

Well, there are technical measures that can be taken to ameliorate things. Build dams. Dams are dammed expensive :-) but they do serve to impound water that would otherwise run off before it could be used.

So the actual damage is not the lives of the three billion, but the lives of the hundreds who may die in the construction, the thousands or tens of thousands whose lives will be thrown out of kilter by being displaced, and the moderate impact on the billions who will have to ante up to fund the dams.

Yes, these glaciers, as with most glaciers (exception, New Zealand), are in serious retreat.

I should be Mr Resentment, I grew up a minority (white) in a predominantly black city with a black mayor. I was discriminated against for being white. But I am not and I have little patience with racists who have never lived any nearer to a black family than on the proverbial other Side of the Railroad Tracks.

good job Ralphie ... you've walked a mile in the other guy's shoes and you "get it."

So ideology trumps wealth. Take T Boone Pickens. When he was part of the Swiftboating he was accepted as one of them. The moment he started talking about alternative energy and wind power he was not one of them. So we've seen the opposite ends with Pickens. With Soros it remains rather static.

It's because Pickens served some purpose to the Right at one time. Soros, never yet.

OT: I don't know how many football fans we have here, but the Saints rallied from 10 back with 8 minutes left to force overtime, and my local Fox station decided to cut to the stupid Dallas/NYGiants game.

To be honest, I don't many "right-wing populists" so I'm not that familiar with it, at least not on a personal level.

I live in Chicago, so most of my friends are liberals in their 20's. But I work in a very wealthy suburb. Most of the people there are conservatives and most of them are wealthy, or at least upper-middle class.

You can be an wealthy and upper class and be an angry populist. See Rick Santelli.

OT: I don't know how many football fans we have here, but the Saints rallied from 10 back with 8 minutes left to force overtime, and my local Fox station decided to cut to the stupid Dallas/NYGiants game.

It's because Pickens served some purpose to the Right at one time. Soros, never yet.

Correct. You think there would be some kind of loyalty towards Pickens given his past work that I mentioned. Or perhaps they would see him as a reason to re-think their opinions on alternative energy if he were seen as a role model.

OT: I don't know how many football fans we have here, but the Saints rallied from 10 back with 8 minutes left to force overtime, and my local Fox station decided to cut to the stupid Dallas/NYGiants game.

Correct. You think there would be some kind of loyalty towards Pickens given his past work that I mentioned. Or perhaps they would see him as a reason to re-think their opinions on alternative energy if he were seen as a role model.

The dismiss the Pickens plan as a cynical bid to up the value of his investments in these sectors, which I think it is. I also think it's worth considering, too. A man can propose a perfectly valid idea for base motives.

They're going to need a buttload of security in Rio. Not as much as if it were in Chicago? but they're gonna need a buttload of security in Rio.

Not sure what the international security requirements would be in Rio. Off hand I would say ordinary crimes would be high on the list. My cousin is in Rio now and she has a body guard and the works. Her husband works for an international firm. As far as terrorism in Rio I think they security risk there would be higher in that regard compared to Chicago.

I went school in an area rough as all hell from 11-16 and studied with a majority of "minority" pupils, what you learn is that everyone from all backgrounds has the same problems at that age love, loss, finding one subject harder than another (and on.).

However - the respect and deep love one develops for people your own age learning in a second language who have been chased out of their own country at gunpoint and atleast one dead parent is un-ending.

When you realise precisely how much worse other people have it in their home countries the "poor oppressed christian white majority of UK/US" meme has no weight with me what so ever. If I were not a Gent i'd frankly spit in the eye of anyone trying to play it.

The dismiss the Pickens plan as a cynical bid to up the value of his investments in these sectors, which I think it is. I also think it's worth considering, too. A man can propose a perfectly valid idea for base motives.

And that's ironic. That they would cynically criticize Pickens because he has a financial (i.e. free-market, capitalist) interest in the proposal. I thought that's how it worked? Why should it matter if he stands to profit if he in the end plays an important role in finding a means to an end?

OT: I don't know how many football fans we have here, but the Saints rallied from 10 back with 8 minutes left to force overtime, and my local Fox station decided to cut to the stupid Dallas/NYGiants game.

Fine by me. I would have been very sad if they hadn't switched to the Cowboys/Giants.

So with this adjustment, would the statement be more accurate? "I always felt that right-wing populism was still very pro-capitalism and takes a "good for them" attitude toward wealthy whiteconservatives."

Also, you can be rich, and very powerful, without being considered an elite, if you play it just right. Witness Rush Limbaugh. This is the political inverse side of the girls from wealthy families who would insist that they were oppressed by our university because they were people of color, while lecturing white girls on scholarship about their racism.

I don't think Sam T said populism=racism, only that race is often a subtext of populism. A point on which I would agree.

As far as Ms Palin feeling uncomfortable in Hawaii, fair enough, but one has to either deal with it by making friends, trying to understand the culture and appreciating it for what it is.

On the other hand if you feel like you are a victim, which she undeniably has done on numerous other occasions, you are more likely to dig in, blame others for your own inability to adapt, and perhaps develop a long term grievance against those who don't conform to your own ideals.

She likes the victim role. It means you can never screw up.

I was a liberal girl at a liberal college in the early 1990s, the hey-day of identity politics. I recognize Sarah's game, and I thought it was stupid even then.

Also, you can be rich, and very powerful, without being considered an elite, if you play it just right. Witness Rush Limbaugh. This is the political inverse side of the girls from wealthy families who would insist that they were oppressed by our university because they were people of color, while lecturing white girls on scholarship about their racism.

All goes back to the construction of class. It's not reducible to any one factor - wealth, power, reputation, perception, race, "face" - they all play a part in it.

IMO the most devastating thing in that piece is the negative comparison to Truman's and Reagan's self-educations. Decades ago I read a bio (Merle Miller's?) of Truman and was astonished at how widely HST had read.

(OT: Tanenhaus notes Reagan's spending, but he neglects to mention that Reagan regretted the deficit in his Farewell Address.)

Tanenhaus on the Palin book tour:

Well, la dee da. I defer to no one in disappointment with Palin, but I don't think much of our pretentious metropolitan élites either.

And that's ironic. That they would cynically criticize Pickens because he has a financial (i.e. free-market, capitalist) interest in the proposal. I thought that's how it worked? Why should it matter if he stands to profit if he in the end plays an important role in finding a means to an end?

Hell, the man saw what he thought was the next big thing, a real set of solutions to a real set of problems, put his money where his mouth was, and tried to get others to do the same. If he should make a buck at it, why not? You can do well by doing good.

And being uncomfortable in an unfamiliar environment at age 18 makes her a racist for life ?

No. Being uncomfortable the first time is normal. What makes the charge of racism plausible is the fact that Palin shows no evidence of having learned anything from the experience. It's one thing for a college freshman to be naive. It's quite another for a middle-aged woman who wanted people to seriously consider her to be Vice President.

Hell, the man saw what he thought was the next big thing, a real set of solutions to a real set of problems, put his money where his mouth was, and tried to get others to do the same. If he should make a buck at it, why not? You can do well by doing good.

Exactly. That's how it's done in the end: with a profit motive or the free-market working within societal requirements and established regulations. It's like being an architect and complaining about regulations. Without those regulations people wouldn't need an architect and be able to build whatever they wanted. Those regulations provide a basis for profit.

And I have said it before here: blaming the man for doing what he had to to survive as a teenage boy is insane.

There is a man in my congregation who survived the Holocaust as a teenager. To this day he suffers from "survivor's guilt" that he is the only one of his family to survive, and he thinks he didn't do enough to save them.

There is a man in my congregation who survived the Holocaust as a teenager. To this day he suffers from "survivor's guilt" that he is the only one of his family to survive, and he thinks he didn't do enough to save them.

Soros said that he feels no guilt and never did.

And Soros will answer for it, as will we all answer for what we have done.

On this issue, I pass no judgment, and find plenty enough elsewhere to make me distrust the man and dislike his causes.

There is a man in my congregation who survived the Holocaust as a teenager. To this day he suffers from "survivor's guilt" that he is the only one of his family to survive, and he thinks he didn't do enough to save them.

Soros said that he feels no guilt and never did.

I am not in the business of telling people who've been to hell what they should feel--or more importantly, what they should tell people they feel.

To make fun of wingnuts. Especially the ones who have genuinely believed that I am an operative of dkos and soros paid to post here.

BTW, Charles has also joked about receiving Soros checks. Have you told him this must mean he feels admiration and affinity for Soros?
Or would this be a case of you having double standards?

This is a case you you repeatedly joking about receiving Soros checks, over and over and over again. You clearly have a thing for Soros. If Charles made such a comment, he said it once. However, it is your trademark, along with "butthurt" to everyone who disagrees with you.

This is a case you you repeatedly joking about receiving Soros checks, over and over and over again. You clearly have a thing for Soros. If Charles made such a comment, he said it once. However, it is your trademark, along with "butthurt" to everyone who disagrees with you.

You know, I didn't even know George Soros existed before I started reading more right-leaning blogs, and I was honestly happier that way.

The punchline is that Don Blankenship the CEO of Massey is a strong opponent of AGW (HT Freetoken).

I've got PetroChina, CHALCO (aluminum corporation of China), and shares in Guanzhou Coal, and absolutely detest China's industrial policies and environmental regulations. But a buck is a buck, you know?

This is a case you you repeatedly joking about receiving Soros checks, over and over and over again. You clearly have a thing for Soros. If Charles made such a comment, he said it once. However, it is your trademark, along with "butthurt" to everyone who disagrees with you.

No, it is a case of you repeatedly trying to make an issue out of nothing. Even here with your laughable 'explanation'. Your first comment here was an attempt to start a fight.

If you don't like my posts, don't read them or respond to them. See how easy that is?

This is a case you you repeatedly joking about receiving Soros checks, over and over and over again. You clearly have a thing for Soros. If Charles made such a comment, he said it once. However, it is your trademark, along with "butthurt" to everyone who disagrees with you.

Awesome logic - because a joke is cracked more than once, it's not a joke anymore! Ever heard of the phrase "running joke"?

And I don't recall iceweasel claiming that everyone who disagrees with her is 'butthurt', or anything remotely like that. You sure sound butthurt right now, though.

Let me start with I do not ever plan to vote for Sarah Palin due to her stand on creationism. However, one of the things I thought we were all trying to get past was our "model" of what a great leader should be...i.e. white, male, East Coast educated, well traveled, impeccable spouse, 2.3 children...etc. That a person felt uncomfortable around different people at 18 or whether they did cocaine at 18 bothers me not the least.

Can you imagine the right-wing outrage if Obama dropped out of Columbia/Harvard Law School because they were too white, and went to Howard University instead? How many seconds would it take for people at Hot Air/Pam Gellar to shout "RAAACIST!!!" if that happened?

Lrrr: These candies are chalky and unpleasant!
Nd-Nd: And what is this emotion you humans call "wuv"?
Lrrr: Surely it says "love"?
Nd-Nd: No, "wuv". With an Earth "W". Behold!
Lrrr: (shouting) This concept of "wuv" confuses and infuriates us!

OT: I don't know how many football fans we have here, but the Saints rallied from 10 back with 8 minutes left to force overtime, and my local Fox station decided to cut to the stupid Dallas/NYGiants game.

“They were a minority type thing and it wasn’t glamorous, so she came home.”

We on the right really need to take control of what's going on with our politics. This concerns me immensely. Truthfully, I think that resistance to many of the Dem policies makes sense, and the fact that we have racists, and xenophobes running the show now makes it look like that is the only motivation behind the populist movements. I am hoping we get our shit together real quick.

Can you imagine the right-wing outrage if Obama dropped out of Columbia/Harvard Law School because they were too white, and went to Howard University instead? How many seconds would it take for people at Hot Air/Pam Gellar to shout "RAAACIST!!!" if that happened?

I honestly think that if that had happened, he wouldn't have been able to run for POTUS. Look how hard the nut fringe has struggled to paint him as an "angry black man" (beck with the "deepseated hatred of white culture", the hysterical claims that there was a michelle obama 'whitey tape'). That's part of the hysteria behind Jeremiah Wright as well.

I honestly think that if that had happened, he wouldn't have been able to run for POTUS. Look how hard the nut fringe has struggled to paint him as an "angry black man" (beck with the "deepseated hatred of white culture", the hysterical claims that there was a michelle obama 'whitey tape'). That's part of the hysteria behind Jeremiah Wright as well.

First off the "whitey tape" thing was a Clinton supporter and troofer if I recall, not a Republican, and you don't think there was any issue with Wright? Please, the fact that the President sat in a church where antisemitism and other horrible things were preached should be a real concern. I would not sit in a shul where language and hatred like that were spewed.

I honestly think that if that had happened, he wouldn't have been able to run for POTUS. Look how hard the nut fringe has struggled to paint him as an "angry black man" (beck with the "deepseated hatred of white culture", the hysterical claims that there was a michelle obama 'whitey tape'). That's part of the hysteria behind Jeremiah Wright as well.

The Palin story reminds me of the last episode of South Park, where Cartman was aghast that his favorite waterpark now had too many hispanic and black patrons.

First off the "whitey tape" thing was a Clinton supporter and troofer if I recall, not a Republican, and you don't think there was any issue with Wright? Please, the fact that the President sat in a church where antisemitism and other horrible things were preached should be a real concern. I would not sit in a shul where language and hatred like that were spewed.

Please note, the reference was to 'nut fringe', not Republicans, and I think a troofer might well qualify for the title!

This doesn't surprise me. I don't know if she's a racist or not but I definitely think she has a lot of contempt for people who don't share her values as stated earlier. When she was on the stump for the ticket here in 2008 she was speaking in a rural and more conservative part of the state talking about how glad she was to be in the real Virginia. It's the typical reverse elitism towards urban and liberal residents that politicians like Palin play to about people who live in cities and are more secular in their belief systems somehow being less American. One thing that I give Bob McDonnell credit for even though I didn't support him was that he didn't play that card. Palin's whole shtick is that people who don't share her worldview are somehow not real Americans and it's a huge turn off honestly.

There's still too much life in that ignoble steed, he offers up daily offenses rather than the preferred historical incident or sermons (that may or may not have had Obama in attendance) that we can pummel with our tiny outraged fists

There's still too much life in that ignoble steed, he offers up daily offenses rather than the preferred historical incident or sermons (that may or may not have had Obama in attendance) that we can pummel with our tiny outraged fists

I got that. Really wasn't thinking dead horse-thoughts. He's prevalent with every new show of idiot outrage.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting the charge. Further, even if she communicated that to her father, so what? she was a teenager. Recall that Michelle Obama wrote some pretty racially oriented stuff and inflammatory stuff while she was at Princeton. Rightfully, no one holds her accountable for what she wrote as a kid in college. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin at all, but the same rules ought to apply to her, especially when there is no supporting evidence.

Tarring someone with a racist label based on anything but their own behavior is no joke and not appropriate.

This is one of the few times I disagree with Charles. I've seen him falsely accused and excoriated- and I don't like it one bit when his accusers assign false motives to him.

Back to Palin...there's many many things that I dislike about the lady and her positions, but dang, I'm still aghast about the misquote to John Wooden in her book - instead of John Wooden Legs the native American. For some reason, that one won't leave my brain!

Don't underestimate the genius of the Palinites. The have invented quantum thinking. You see, there is a dual nature of statements. They can be true and untrue at the same time, and the mere act of asking a question distorts the answer.

Please note, the reference was to 'nut fringe', not Republicans, and I think a troofer might well qualify for the title!

Fair enough, but I was reading a criticism of the right. Now nuts are nuts, hence moronic convergence, but I really was more in disagreement with Ice's take on Wright. I still have a problem with who President Obama chose for a spiritual adviser.

Fair enough, but I was reading a criticism of the right. Now nuts are nuts, hence moronic convergence, but I really was more in disagreement with Ice's take on Wright. I still have a problem with who President Obama chose for a spiritual adviser.

I find it interesting that Oprah had enough sense to back away from him.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting the charge. Further, even if she communicated that to her father, so what? she was a teenager. Recall that Michelle Obama wrote some pretty racially oriented stuff and inflammatory stuff while she was at Princeton. Rightfully, no one holds her accountable for what she wrote as a kid in college. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin at all, but the same rules ought to apply to her, especially when there is no supporting evidence.

Tarring someone with a racist label based on anything but their own behavior is no joke and not appropriate.

This is one of the few times I disagree with Charles. I've seen him falsely accused and excoriated- and I don't like it one bit when his accusers assign false motives to him.

I don't think racism is implied here by anyone. However, race, gender, and class are all inextricably connected as the result of cultural evolution and all intermingle within subcultures and political ideologies and especially identity politics.

First off the "whitey tape" thing was a Clinton supporter and troofer if I recall, not a Republican, and you don't think there was any issue with Wright? Please, the fact that the President sat in a church where antisemitism and other horrible things were preached should be a real concern. I would not sit in a shul where language and hatred like that were spewed.

I said 'nut fringe', and as far as I am concerned that Larry Whatsit guy, the Hillary supporter who kept pushing that tape nonsense, most definitely qualifies.
Insanity isn't partisan, although it may sometimes be pretty to think so.

Yeah...it's just, you know, I like the idea of the PRESIDENT also being smart.

Then again, back when the Democrats were in a frenzy--"black guy or white woman? What to do?" I suggested we run Oprah, and get a two-fer. Stedman doesn't seem like First Gentleman material, but I'm sure Gayle would be an excellent White House hostess.

I said 'nut fringe', and as far as I am concerned that Larry Whatsit guy, the Hillary supporter who kept pushing that tape nonsense, most definitely qualifies.
Insanity isn't partisan, although it may sometimes be pretty to think so.

No you're right, crazy is crazy and everywhere. Just out of curiosity though, you didn't have a problem with Wright? That's what stood out the most.

Yeah...it's just, you know, I like the idea of the PRESIDENT also being smart.

Then again, back when the Democrats were in a frenzy--"black guy or white woman? What to do?" I suggested we run Oprah, and get a two-fer. Stedman doesn't seem like First Gentleman material, but I'm sure Gayle would be an excellent White House hostess.

Obama's presence there and any loyalty he might have had to Wright's church were based in political considerations. As I understand it, Wright's church was and is a political powerhouse in Chicago. Had Obama NOT gone, it would have been odd.

Don't underestimate the genius of the Palinites. The have invented quantum thinking. You see, there is a dual nature of statements. They can be true and untrue at the same time, and the mere act of asking a question distorts the answer.

The old Beckite approach of "Why am I the only one asking these kind of questions?".

Even if one isn't, it creates a field of quantim flux that will generate hours of pointless political discussion...

Obama's presence there and any loyalty he might have had to Wright's church were based in political considerations. As I understand it, Wright's church was and is a political powerhouse in Chicago. Had Obama NOT gone, it would have been odd.

Sure, but Oprah realized she was going for a national audience earlier, it seems...

Obama's presence there and any loyalty he might have had to Wright's church were based in political considerations. As I understand it, Wright's church was and is a political powerhouse in Chicago. Had Obama NOT gone, it would have been odd.

Sure, but Oprah realized she was going for a national audience earlier, it seems...

Hence the timing of the parting of ways. Had Obama cut loose earlier, when the White House wasn't in the bag, he'd have alienated his domestic constituency and damaged himself and ended his political career pretty darned quickly. Hedging his bets, he held off until it was both safe & necessary to do so.

No you're right, crazy is crazy and everywhere. Just out of curiosity though, you didn't have a problem with Wright? That's what stood out the most.

Guanx88 nails the Wright issue for me in 320.

The point I was originally making, though, is that there was an ugly undercurrent to some of the hysteria over Wright that most definitely was meant to play to the notion of Obama as scary, angry black man bent on separatism, reparations, and 'getting whitey'. The talk about the mythical whitey tape is a perfect example of it: it was supposedly some event connected with Wright's church, featuring an angry michelle obama, and if I'm not mistaken the rumours even included talk about Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Those particular sorts of rumours were certainly aimed at propagating that notion of 'angry black man'-- and that is a trope still being marketed now by some, with talk of Obama having a 'deepseated hatred for white culture' and the like.

I don't know if you're from Chicago or not, but I go on business occasionally and what AMAZES me is they have an area called "Jew Town" that they say without the slightest hint of embarrassment. I was shocked!

I don't know if you're from Chicago or not, but I go on business occasionally and what AMAZES me is they have an area called "Jew Town" that they say without the slightest hint of embarrassment. I was shocked!

Spent some time there, but knew quite a few Chicagoans. Very rough place, and with political traditions and attitudes that would be grounds for indictment and public shunning in any civilized nation.

The point I was originally making, though, is that there was an ugly undercurrent to some of the hysteria over Wright that most definitely was meant to play to the notion of Obama as scary, angry black man bent on separatism, reparations, and 'getting whitey'. The talk about the mythical whitey tape is a perfect example of it: it was supposedly some event connected with Wright's church, featuring an angry michelle obama, and if I'm not mistaken the rumours even included talk about Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Those particular sorts of rumours were certainly aimed at propagating that notion of 'angry black man'-- and that is a trope still being marketed now by some, with talk of Obama having a 'deepseated hatred for white culture' and the like.

I think Wright is inexcusable and the race baiting on the right is appalling. Racial politics is absolutely disgusting.

This NSFW search yields results, which would make me think twice before enrolling my child in a Hawaiian school. I trust people are more mature in university. But maybe Palin caught a lot of nativist abuse from Hawaiians, and is too gracious or politicall calculating to say so.

Um - you just posted a link to an article which exposes an example of blatant wingnut fabrication and distortion about Soros. Very interesting it was too -don't really see how it advances your point though - just the opposite, in fact.

I'm sure he's the first politician to use a church for local political gain. Anywhere outside of Chicago this just doesn't happen. /

Not the church going part, the fact that it had to be a racist one. I have a problem with that, like I would if one were to attend a white nationalist church for political purposes. The argument is that the President HAD to go to Wright's church because politically it is so powerful. I am saying, IF that is the case, then it says something sad about Chicago. You don't think so? You think having to go to a racist church for political reasons speaks well of the local in which a pol is running?

I think Wright is inexcusable and the race baiting on the right is appalling. Racial politics is absolutely disgusting.

I think the Wright issue was a sad sideshow carnival that distracted from talking about the real issues during the campaign. Another shiny object for the media to chase and yap about, along with trivia like who spent how much on their wardrobe.

I think the Wright issue was a sad sideshow carnival that distracted from talking about the real issues during the campaign. Another shiny object for the media to chase and yap about, along with trivia like who spent how much on their wardrobe.

Obama's presence there and any loyalty he might have had to Wright's church were based in political considerations. As I understand it, Wright's church was and is a political powerhouse in Chicago. Had Obama NOT gone, it would have been odd.

I'm sure he's the first politician to use a church for local political gain. Anywhere outside of Chicago this just doesn't happen. /

Well, going back to our girl of the hour, Sarah Palin's pastor apparently said that people who criticized Bush were damned, and question if Kerry voters would go to heaven. I have to tell you, that worries me about as much as Wright. And Wright does worry me. I know where he is coming from, and I do not like it.

I also do not like the prominence given to powerful Protestant preachers in U.S. politics in general. I was deeply ticked off with both McCain and Obama for agreeding to the Saddleback Church event.

Obama's presence there and any loyalty he might have had to Wright's church were based in political considerations. As I understand it, Wright's church was and is a political powerhouse in Chicago. Had Obama NOT gone, it would have been odd.

Fair, but he should have know to break connection with Rev. Wright early in the campaign. Oprah even left the church because she didn't like the hate in Rev. Wright's sermons.

I think the Wright issue was a sad sideshow carnival that distracted from talking about the real issues during the campaign. Another shiny object for the media to chase and yap about, along with trivia like who spent how much on their wardrobe.

Then we agree to disagree. I think the Wright issue is more akin to Palin's association with Robert Stacy McCain.

I think the Wright issue was a sad sideshow carnival that distracted from talking about the real issues during the campaign. Another shiny object for the media to chase and yap about, along with trivia like who spent how much on their wardrobe.

Respectfully disagree. We are obliged to try and weigh the character of the candidates, and evaluating what he fills his ears with each Sunday morning is fair game.

Notice how separation of church and state never extends to Dems campaigning from the pulpits of black churches.

Of course not. Any supposed politicking one sees there is purely coincidental, and the result of the fact that the Democratic Party's platform is indistinguishable from the Sermon on the Mount and the teachings of the Apostles and Prophets.
///

This NSFW search yields results, which would make me think twice before enrolling my child in a Hawaiian school. I trust people are more mature in university. But maybe Palin caught a lot of nativist abuse from Hawaiians, and is too gracious or politicall calculating to say so.

The Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine ran a piece a short time ago on hate crimes against white Hawaiians. However, I'm prone to think Palin just didn't like Hawaii very much.

While I certainly don't like the Saddleback Church or its pastor, he actually asked insightful and appropriate questions. Not bullshit about flag pins. This more shows what a terrible state the media is in than anything good about that church, though.

Well, going back to our girl of the hour, Sarah Palin's pastor apparently said that people who criticized Bush were damned, and question if Kerry voters would go to heaven. I have to tell you, that worries me about as much as Wright. And Wright does worry me. I know where he is coming from, and I do not like it.

I also do not like the prominence given to powerful Protestant preachers in U.S. politics in general. I was deeply ticked off with both McCain and Obama for agreeding to the Saddleback Church event.

Here here-Or the fact that many Christians, even here, were so opposed to Romney because he is a Mormon.

While I certainly don't like the Saddleback Church or its pastor, he actually asked insightful and appropriate questions. Not bullshit about flag pins. This more shows what a terrible state the media is in than anything good about that church, though.

It's not personally about Rick Warren or Saddleback. Allowing a preacher to summon two presidential candidates to be interviewed by him, in his church, as a major part of his campaign, struck me as being far beyong the line of propriety.

I wouldn't have liked it if they'd done it at Glide Cathedral in San Francisco, or Temple Emanu-El in New York. Which they would not have done.

How Palin will translate this tomorrow: They're calling my dad a racist! Oh, and look, I'm holding Trig, who they also hate, also! (note, I originally wrote 'whom they hate' but realized that the objective isn't something Sarah's familiar with, so dropped the m for authenticity.

While I certainly don't like the Saddleback Church or its pastor, he actually asked insightful and appropriate questions. Not bullshit about flag pins. This more shows what a terrible state the media is in than anything good about that church, though.

I imagine it just seemed faraway and with idyllic weather when she picked it out, and then it was real, and more complicated and foreign than she expected.

I went back East for similar reasons, and burned out fast on the snow, and Easterners. And the hippie school I ended up at. But one of my high school friends loves it, has developed an MA accent, and bought a condo in Salem.

The Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine ran a piece a short time ago on hate crimes against white Hawaiians. However, I'm prone to think Palin just didn't like Hawaii very much.

Oddly, she didn't like anywhere very much, when it came to attending college.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with attending several schools, or transferring, but I wonder what her reasons were for each of the other transfers. Maybe she was just homesick for Alaska, but again, that speaks to the point you (or someone) made earlier -- I'd prefer a POTUS or veep who is comfortable all over America.

I imagine it just seemed faraway and with idyllic weather when she picked it out, and then it was real, and more complicated and foreign than she expected.

I went back East for similar reasons, and burned out fast on the snow, and Easterners. And the hippie school I ended up at. But one of my high school friends loves it, has developed an MA accent, and bought a condo in Salem.

Loved Salem. Even though about getting a place there and taking the commuter rail to work in beantown, at one point. Wife wouldn't have it, though. She liked to sleep late and knew she'd miss her train and end up late for work.

Ebenezer Baptist Church, the home church of Martin Luther King, Jr., is just down the interstate from me. Every Democratic primary season, the candidates come flocking there. It's like having our own miniature Iowa.

Not always an invective. I remember when "Negro" was polite and "black" was rude. Blacks rightly stated that their skin color wasn't black and they objected to the usage. Then "black" became correct and "Negro" was was unacceptable because a slur was derived from it. "Jew" is from "Judah". By popular usage, it now applies to both the tribes of Judah and Israel. The two are synonymous, but it was not always so. The Jews have often been persecuted, but the word "Jew" has been used by friend, foe, and family for centuries.

I was married there! Also bat mitzvahed. (It's not a verb, I know, but English is like that...)

My grandmother's house is up on Clay street, between Locust and Laurel, right above the temple. My grandfather and grandmother were the first Jews on the block, too-- he was a real estate agent, and finagled it. Bought the house for $65,000 in 1960-- you don't want to know what it's worth now. ;)

Ebenezer Baptist Church, the home church of Martin Luther King, Jr., is just down the interstate from me. Every Democratic primary season, the candidates come flocking there. It's like having our own miniature Iowa.

Oh, I can well imagine. But going to church to get votes is a truly bipartisan activity.

My grandmother's house is up on Clay street, between Locust and Laurel, right above the temple. My grandfather and grandmother were the first Jews on the block, too-- he was a real estate agent, and finagled it. Bought the house for $65,000 in 1960-- you don't want to know what it's worth now. ;)

Would you really be more proud of and more connected to your Judaism if it had nothing to say about hunger or homelessness; nothing to say about capital punishment or abortion; nothing to say about euthanasia or rationing health care; nothing to say about genetic engineering or third world debt, violence or pornography, poverty or slavery? Would Judaism truly inspire you and uplift you, would it transform your soul and realize your dreams if it was merely a complete theory of candle lighting and bread blessing?

Hard to think of a better one. Which is a good thing, because his brother embezzled from him, bigtime, and then a scurrilous stockbroker wiped out the rest of their wealth. They owned the house free and clear, though, so they were never in trouble. When grandma died, my parents wanted to sell it-- but my brothers and I talked them out of it. Now they're retiring there. I'm happy.

However, I now have to make enough money to pay the estate tax on it when they pass.

Hard to think of a better one. Which is a good thing, because his brother embezzled from him, bigtime, and then a scurrilous stockbroker wiped out the rest of their wealth. They owned the house free and clear, though, so they were never in trouble. When grandma died, my parents wanted to sell it-- but my brothers and I talked them out of it. Now they're retiring there. I'm happy.

However, I now have to make enough money to pay the estate tax on it when they pass.

I don't go to church to learn science.
I don't get political advice from actors.
I don't get scientific knowledge from television.
I don't get the fish plate at the all-night diner.
I don't buy guitars from walmart.

You said that the church ask good questions, but that it didn't mean that there was anything good about the church. I was asking how you drew the latter conclusion.

Can you please show me where I said that there wasn't anything good about the church?

This is the Rick Warren who won't condemn the 'kill all the gays' Ugandan law, remember? I don't like the church, and I don't like him, for that, and other of their policies. That's not the same as saying it contains no good.

Would you really be more proud of and more connected to your Judaism if it had nothing to say about hunger or homelessness; nothing to say about capital punishment or abortion; nothing to say about euthanasia or rationing health care; nothing to say about genetic engineering or third world debt, violence or pornography, poverty or slavery? Would Judaism truly inspire you and uplift you, would it transform your soul and realize your dreams if it was merely a complete theory of candle lighting and bread blessing?

Religion can and should, to its believers, provide a template for the way they should live their lives. However, that is very different than saying "Chickens coming home to roost" or "911 happened because of homosexuality" or "This is G-d's war". It is also very different than saying that religion should have a role in politics and visa versa.

I actually just almost finished reading the book, and she does not come off as a racist at all. She is very proud of Todd's and her kid's backgrounds and talks about Todd's mother (who was married to a Caucasian) at length. Let's not tar and feather her because of something her father supposedly said.
Let's also not jump to the conclusion that she is a racist because she preferred to go to school in a place that was like home. Honestly, those dots do NOT connect!

Can you please show me where I said that there wasn't anything good about the church?

This is the Rick Warren who won't condemn the 'kill all the gays' Ugandan law, remember? I don't like the church, and I don't like him, for that, and other of their policies. That's not the same as saying it contains no good.

Religion can and should, to its believers, provide a template for the way they should live their lives. However, that is very different than saying "Chickens coming home to roost" or "911 happened because of homosexuality" or "This is G-d's war". It is also very different than saying that religion should have a role in politics and visa versa.

Those instances certainly don't put religion in a flattering light, certainly. But so long as politics in this country attempts to inspire us with a higher calling, religion will be involved to some extent. The inter-seepage is unpoliceable.

"Populist" and "populism" seem to be taking on meanings I never associated with them. I'm an old man, and "populism" as I understand and remember it was a political and economic movement starting places like here (Husker Nation) and producing people like William Jennings Bryan and Sen. George Norris. Bryan was a joke, but Norris gave us things like the unicameral, nonpartisan legislature and, more important, public power. I'm strong for capitalism, but will defend public power, at least as practiced in Nebraska, as one of the most useful innovations of the past century. Meanwhile, Go Big Red.

Not always an invective. I remember when "Negro" was polite and "black" was rude. Blacks rightly stated that their skin color wasn't black and they objected to the usage. Then "black" became correct and "Negro" was was unacceptable because a slur was derived from it. "Jew" is from "Judah". By popular usage, it now applies to both the tribes of Judah and Israel. The two are synonymous, but it was not always so. The Jews have often been persecuted, but the word "Jew" has been used by friend, foe, and family for centuries.

It wasn't the word Jew I was surprised by. I was shocked that they used an ethnicity (as opposed to nationality) to describe a neighborhood. For example we have China Town, not Chinese Town, and Little Italy not Little Italian. There are no Black Lands, or Hispanicvilles to my knowledge, though there are Little Jamaica's and Little Havanas.

You are correct. And she handled it by quitting UH and going somewhere where she felt more "comfortable". That is most certainly not a quality one would want in a President, who is supposed to represent all Americans.

One of my biggest problems with Palin is her very obvious capriciousness. It seems she very rarely finishes something she starts. She went through something four different universities before getting even her BA, with who knows how many major changes. She quit her job as mayor; quit her job on the oil oversight board; and recently quit her job as governor, all before her terms ended. Such a desultory record doesn't exactly reflect presidential qualities IMHO.

No. Being uncomfortable the first time is normal. What makes the charge of racism plausible is the fact that Palin shows no evidence of having learned anything from the experience. It's one thing for a college freshman to be naive. It's quite another for a middle-aged woman who wanted people to seriously consider her to be Vice President.